Thanks, Ned. I'll give it a try at some point.
Thanks, Ned. I'll give it a try at some point.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I use Photographer's Formulary Liquidol at 1:3 dilution, 1:30, 72F and it tames the contrast quite well. You get a very warm toned paper negative that is relatively lower in contrast than straight paper developer.Originally Posted by Peter De Smidt
I hear Dektol is about the same when diluted 1:3...
Kino
We never have time to do it right, but we always seem to have time to do it again...
Thanks, Kino. Maybe I'll play with dilutions later. I just realized that Ilford makes a thinner paper than I used. That would make it easier to load into the holders. I'll also try using a 480mm lens instead of the 360. The big challenge will be getting people to sit for portraits.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
When I took the 8x10 paper negative photos of Janice, I tried some with a yellow/green filter, and some with no filter. The yellow/green filter prints scanned just fine on a cheap Canon flatbed, but the prints with no filter were too contrasty for the scanner. Today, I finally got my 8x10 film scanner operational. I 'scanned' the paper negatives made with no filter on it using transmitted light. That worked just fine, but....if I showed those images to anyone, I doubt that you'd hear from me again. No filter lead to a massive increase in skin detail and tonal variation. Terrific, perhaps, for the old man of the sea, but not so good for a pretty lady. Yeah, I suspected that would be the case. Anyway, for that format and distance to subject, f/16 on the lens is better than f/11, imo. Basically, with f/11 and focusing on eyelashes, the subject's nose gets quite blurry. I don't mind a little of that, but too much is distracting for me. F/16 was significantly better, with the tip of Janice's nose showing just a hint of softness. Next time, I'm going to give Foma 200 film a try.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Oh, this is a great tip! I'm going to try it this weekend.
Don
Pre-flashing might possibly buy you the extra stop for more DOF! It's pretty close to making the paper 1 stop faster.
It takes a bit of testing. Make test strips and choose the longest pre-flash that is still paper white after developing.
I use a variation: most paper these days has a mixture of 2 or 3 emulsions that have different spectral sensitivities. I like to pre-flash through a green filter... so that the green-sensitive part of the paper gets pre-exposure, but the blue-sensitive part still has some "lag time" before it starts to do anything. This is oversimplifying, but it's like giving the "low contrast" part of the emulsion a head start.
But again, I like what you did already!
13x18 paper negative
Nicely done, Giovanni!
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
3000k or 6000k light: an exposure question
I like shooting b&w paper negatives (outside), usually with a yellow filter. But, I’ve not done that in studio because paper is so slow. So, I was thinking, what if I relamp my continuous studio lights (I don’t use strobes) with high wattage corn leds to pick up a stop or two (I can go from about 22,000 lumens to about 56,000)! The question is, what would the difference be between 3000k and 6000k lights as it relates to paper negs? I hate to commit to spending a couple hundred bucks on bulbs before I figure it out. Any thoughts? Would the yellower light help with contrast, or would the exposure lengthen negating the idea? Or, stick with daylight and use the filter? Would the filter factor be the same? Would the tone scale change? This hurts my brain…
Hi Motdarnoc
not sure about the lumens or if the color cast would be different because it isn't sunlight and vitamin D and all that .. do you can go to the hardware store and just get a shop light or bright LED for your garage for not much doe ( and just bounce it )... a way to compensate, add light and sometimes you can tweak the tonality of the final print.
trees on a country road, 4x5 paper negative Delmar 7 count, caffenol with additions plain speed fix
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks